So...The dog story is the political agenda. It is a trend that is deliberately propagated and upheld for a reason. However, it is not only limited to the,as my favorite maniac likes to call it “Eurasia”, yet it is global. Simple fact that the same (negative) things are happening in different places, but in the same time, indicate that this trend is a global trend. The fact that the same problems with dogs and the dogcravers exist in the developed world (so called 1st world countries) and in the undeveloped, although I would rather call them miss-developed countries (so called 3rd world countries) and that the responses from the justice system and the law enforcement are equally impotent and bizarre, regardless of the country, speaks even more on the behalf of the fact that we are dealing, with the global trend to nullify all the social contracts up on which the modern state is based on. Thus nullifying the state existence in the process. So all in all, I think that this strife for more liberalization and pushing the civil liberties and human rights, has effectively lead to the fact- that no one has any rights anymore.
The same paradox goes with the freedom of speech. In the totalitarian dictatorships freedom of speech is forbidden and there are things you can say and things that you cant. Main reason for that is to suppress the alternatives (in thinking, in doing things) to the ruling regime. So since there are no alternatives,other than the ruling regime, there is no competition and the safety of the regime is assured. However, in countries where the freedom of speech is allowed, same thing happens, but from the other end. Since everyone is allowed to talk freely, that creates a cacophony where, since everyone talks, no one can be heard, since the voice is simply lost in all that noise of other voices. This actually means that the supposedly free societies are actually the most totalitarian ones.
Now, would this mean that I am against freedom of speech and human rights? No. I am for the freedom of speech but under one condition- everyone should be allowed to speak but only if they have something INTELLIGENT and CONSTRUCTIVE to say. Otherwise you will get a hectic blabbering that makes no sense and that is precisely what is going on today. Same goes for the human rights. People are allowed to act as they want to pursue their life goals, but only if their life goals are beneficial for them AND the others. Again, if people are allowed to pursue their life goals without these guides, that leads chaos and conflict situations. I mean, what is the life goal of a pedophile? To be life time employe in the kindergarten. Shall we allow that, in the name of freedom and human rights? Or do you think that cannibals deserve the same rights as others? Why not, they are the humans with special needs, lets let them open their restaurants in the name of freedoms and rights. You can go to their restaurant and eat for free, cause you are a customer and a main dish in the same time.
I believe that we are on the right track to accomplish just that with the deregulation of everything in the name of freedom. Freedom to the point of idiocracy where no one will be responsible for anything. If some company builds a bridge made out of toothpicks, cause it is economical, profitable and lets not forget the liberal free market mantra, “INNOVATIVE” ( I want to scream when I hear the word innovative, cause it is the biggest hoax of all times) design, the minute when the bridge opens and collapses with the first car that attempts to cross it, lets not blame the engineers and the company. It is not their fault. Its gravity's fault. The cars were to heavy, we need to change the cars. The bridge itself was fine until it was opened, so don't blame the design of the bridge. It is a proven construction.
So the answer to the question of how many people lives must be destroyed and lost, in order for the dog ownership to become properly regulated, doesn't exist, because this question is actually a wrong question. It is wrong cause it addresses the wrong subject. Let me try to explain as vividly as possible. Back to the bridge story.
When a company decides to build a bridge, in the process of its construction, engineers have to calculate all the factors that can impact the bridge. They need to calculate those factors, because in essence those factors are opposing to the bridge's existence. The gravity wants to bring it down, the river wants to bring it down, the winds want to bring it down, the earthquakes want to bring it down, the rust wants to bring it down, the traffic wants to bring it down...No one questions the gravity, the river flow and the hydro-mechanical forces it creates, wind forces, traffic loads, corrosion process. They are known, recognized and they are COUNTERED trough the engineering process. The result of good engineering is the result of good countering to these factors, cause as the result of countering to these factors, the bridge EXISTS as an useful object.
But with dogs, the very nature of the dog is questioned. The only true fact that defines the dog is the first one that is neglected and that fact is that the dog is a mutant carnivore animal, created by humans to full fill specific human needs and tasks. The fact that it is a carnivore animal is more than enough to call for strict regulation, because as a carnivore animal it needs the meat to eat , in order to survive and since humans are made out of meat, that places humans directly on the dog's menu. So in order to protect the humans, because they are made out of meat that dogs eat, the dog ownership must be regulated. Moreover, the desire to have a carnivore animal that can eat you, as a pet, is a irrational and auto destructive desire in the first place, and this fact calls for even more regulation of humans whom crave this kind of relationship. Because in essence it is INSANE and DESTRUCTIVE (both self destructive and just plain destructive).
Yet everything opposite is happening. The insanity of this relationship is elevated to the highest heights. It became a VALUE. Why? Simply because the people with a death wish that they express trough the dog ownership, need endless assurance that they are not mentally ill. It is the logical step after they accepted the proto-lie, which is that dog is not a danger, so since the dog is not a danger, they decided to have it. As soon as they got the dog, they became a symbiotic organism- the dogcraver. However, other people, whom are mentally fit, don't need a dog, see them as two separate entities, they see an animal and human and they recognize the animal as a carnivore animal and therefore as a threat and react to it. However, the dogcravers, since they are symbiotic organism, see the need for conditioning the dog's behavior as the attempt to condition their behavior aka to take away their freedom, so automatically the sane people are now a threat, cause they want to take away their freedom.
And they protests.
This is how the question of conditioning the behavior of one carnivore animal gets elevated to the human rights and freedoms level. Trough the perversion of the dogcraver's mind. But since the law and the legislative system doesn't recognize this, because it treats all humans as equal and it treats them because it is a fair thing to do (just if you want), by equalizing the dogcraver and the human and by treating them as the same, the law, seen here as some sort of “organism”, “ingests” them both (starts to process their cases). However, the dogcraver, since it is a symbiotic organism and a aggressive one, eats the law from the inside, once when it is in the system aka when it is "ingested". As the time goes by, the justice system gets weaker while the dogcraver gets stronger. All that is left at the end is an empty shell of a system. That is why the actions aimed to regulate the dog ownership are so impotent and ineffective.
The dogcravers are “infected” organisms, with the disease that is not been recognized by the medical profession and therefore, since they are treated as healthy, their disease was allowed to infect the entire society. This process has been left untreated for so many years, that at the end, the number of infected was so great that the healthy ones became recognized as infected.